Early Meat-Eating Human Ancestors Thrived While Vegetarian Hominin Died Out

[xchrom]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/08/early-meat-eating-human-ancestors-thrived-while-vegetarian-hominin-died-out/


Early Homo molar; image courtesy of Jose Braga/Didier Descouens


There has been fierce debate recently over whether the original “caveman” diet was one of heaps of bloody meat or fields of greens. New findings suggest that some of our early ancestors were actually quite omnivorous. But subsequently, our line and an ill-fated group of hominins developed very different dietary strategies. One chose meat while the other moved toward more plants.

The hominin Australopithecus, which lived from about 4 million to 2 million years ago, is presumed to be a common ancestor of both the Homo lineage, which emerged some 2.3 million years ago and gave rise to us, and to the Paranthropus genius, which is first documented about 2.7 million years ago and died out about 1 million years ago. Some have attributed the extinction of Paranthropus to an inflexible diet or limited territory, especially in the face of climactic changes.

A team of researchers led by Vincent Balter, of École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, decided to probe into some of these debates. They used lasers to analyze the enamel from fossilized teeth belonging to Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus and early Homo specimens, which were all from southern Africa. By assessing ratios of calcium, barium and strontium as well as the number of strontium isotopes, the team was able to deduce both diet and the size of the area that these individuals ranged over. The findings were published online August 8 in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

[d_r]

1. our ancestor

ate whatever they could get.

To pass their genes to us they only had to survive long enough to have children that would survive long enough to have children and so on.

They didn't have to live long lives. Our genetics don't necessarily favor living long lives.

High protein in meat probably did help our brains grow larger.

Look at animals. Carnivores (canine, feline) and omnivores (pigs, bears) are smarter than herbivores (herd animals, rodents). Elephants are one exception to this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Natural selection is biased toward intelligence in carnivores.

Herbivores? That leaf ain't going anywhere.

[d_r]

3. yes, agreed

& understood.

I'd also add that what our genes favored to taste "good" - high fat, salt, etc. - might be beneficial for short term survival in times of lean but not for long term life in times of plenty

[FiveGoodMen]

7. I think our cravings were tilted toward things that we needed but were hard to get

Picking a berry's not too tough (if there are berries around).

But catching and killing something that ...
A) is able to defend itself (or run away), and
B) might just want to catch and eat us instead
...is a big undertaking.

I think our ancestors needed to REALLY WANT that meat in order to go to the trouble of getting it.

In the modern world, that high-fat food is easy to get, but we still crave it, so NOW we eat too much of it.

[d_r]

8. yep exactly

our biology doesn't fit with our lifestyle

[Coexist]

5. got a link to any science supporting that?!

[d_r]

6. supporting what coexist?

[Warpy]

4. Early meat eaters were more likely to dine on crickets and grasshoppers

than manly, bloody chunks of Mammoth, but even that much gave them more flexibility during environmental disasters. Locust invasions that devastated the plants were mitigated by eating the locusts, probably toasted. Fried grasshopper isn't bad, I've had it. Locusts were probably similar. It would keep them alive as they moved into non devastated areas.

They undoubtedly moved to other protein prey quickly as they figured out how to snare birds and spear fish.